The Complementary School-University Partnership through the Lens of a Learning Community

Abstract

The paper includes the results of a descriptive case-study in which a university-based Hungar- ian practice school is compared to the model of Professional Development School. Data sourc- es include school teachers (N=102), university educators of subject methodology (N=20) and pre-service teachers doing their group practice at the university’s practice school (N=22). The data were collected via a set of questionnaires and analyzed with descriptive and mathemati- cal statistics. The open-ended questions were content analyzed with an open coding process of the answers. The results proved that teachers and university educators in complementary university-school partnership are very far from the core concept of Professional Development School. Cooperation of teachers and university teachers does not take privilege in any par- ties’ beliefs. The main goal of the school practice is to improve candidates’ individual skills, but those of enhancing collaboration are not developed adequately. Furthermore, the lack of cooperation is a relevant issue among school teachers concerning their beliefs related to the teaching-learning process.

Keywords

• teacher education,university-school relationship,school practice,professional development school

References

1. Carlson, H. L. (1999). From Practice to Theory: a social constructivist approach to teacher education. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice. Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 203-218.
2. Clark, R. W. (1999). Effective professional development schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. (ED 429 935)
3. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-Century Teacher Education. Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 57, No. X, 1-15.
4. European Commission (2015). The Teaching Profession in Europe: Practices, Perceptions, and Policies. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
5. Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1013-1055.
6. Furlong, J., Campbell, A., Howson, J., Lewis, S. and McNamara, O. (2006). Partnership in English Initial Teacher Education: Changing Times, Changing Definitions. Evidence from the Teacher Training Agency's National Partnership Project. Scottish Educational Review, 37: 32–45.
7. Garvin, D. A. (1993). Building a Learning Organization, Harvard Business Review, July-August, 1993 Issue.
8. Hagger, H., & McIntyre, D. (2006). Learning Teaching from Teachers: Realizing the Potential of School-based Teacher Education. McGraw-Hill International.

9. Holmes Group (1986). Tomorrow's teachers: A report of the Holmes Group. East Lansing, MI Holmes Group.
10. Holmes Group (1990). Tomorrow's teachers: Principals for the design of professional development school. East Lansing, MI Holmes Group.
11. Jensen, B., et al. (2012). The Experience of New Teachers: Results from TALIS 2008, OECD Publishing.
12. Hungarian Government (2012). 283/2012. (X. 4.) Korm. rendelet a tanárképzés rendszeréről, a szakosodás rendjéről és a tanárszakok jegyzékéről (Edict of Hungarian Government of the system of initial teacher education and the specialization process; the list of majors).
13. Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14. Korthagen, F. and Kessels, J. P. (1999). Linking Theory and Practice: Changing the Pedagogy of Teacher Education. Educational Researcher, 28(4), 4–17.
15. Levine, M. (1997). Introduction. In.: M. Levine & R. Trachtman (Eds.), Making professional development schools work: Politics, practice, and policy (pp. 1-11). New York: Teachers College Press. (ED 411 222)
16. Murray, J., Swennen, J., Kosnik, C. (2019). International Research, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education. Springer International Publishing.
17. OECD (2014). TALIS 2013 Results. An International Perspective on Teaching and Learning. Paris: OECD.
18. Putnam, R., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4-15.
19. Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline. New York: Dubbleday.
20. Shulman, L. S. (1986). “Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.” Educational Researcher Feb. 1986: 4-14.
21. Stéger, Cs. (2014). State of play in teacher education in Hungary AFTER the Bologna reforms. Eötvös University Press.
22. Stake, R. (1998). “Case Studies” In: Norman Denzin & Yvonna Lincoln. (eds.): Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage.
23. Vick, M. (2006). “It's a difficult matter”: Historical perspectives on the enduring problem of the practicum in teacher preparation. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 34, 181-198.
24. Yin, R. (1993). Applications of case study research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publishing.